UV Filers for lens protection Yes or No?

[Bushboy]

I don't see the way, just a window. Do filters remove walls?
[

I don't see the way, just a window. Do filters remove walls?
i see it’s now, It’s a window, not a wall. Duh!
First thing in the morning, before my coffee, I thought Scott’s window was wallpaper... duh
But anyway, that’s not a fair test. Because his balls of bokeh are hanging out, which I didn’t notice until Acheopterex pointed it out...

 

[ianpiper]

Looking for opinions on lens protection using filters. Recommendations welcome

Looking for opinions on lens protection using filters. Recommendations welcome

I always fit B+W filters to my lenses. In the UK these cost maybe £35. Much less than the cost of a repair to a damaged lens.

 

[Tool Crazy]

If you care about resale value, they are a must. My favorites were Mefoto since they are good quality and are cheap however it seems they are being phased out. Before Mefoto, I used Hoya since they don't affect image quality and are the next cheapest option.

If you go the uv filter route, avoid no name brands and avoid the low price Tiffen filters, as those will affect image quality and make your images soft.

Also don't listen to some who say all filters, even the good ones affect image quality. If you think about how many lens elements are in many lenses, you quickly realize more glass doesn't equal poor image quality. Crappy filters will affect image quality, good ones don't.

 

[wjiang]

There's cheap and nasty on one end and there's overpriced on the other. Some measured perspective:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

The other articles he's written on the topic (linked to from the introduction) are worth reading too.

 

[Bushboy]

Archaeopteryx can find no meaningful degradation with using these filters. that should be end of story for 99.9% of everyone here.
That’s it, use them to protect your lens coating if you need.
Luckily, all three I have, tested fine in Wijiang’s link.

 

[Aristophanes]

Olympus sells clear protective filters. So they aren’t a no-go from the OEM.

 

[RichardC]

Archaeopteryx can find no meaningful degradation with using these filters. that should be end of story for 99.9% of everyone here.
That’s it, use them to protect your lens coating if you need.
Luckily, all three I have, tested fine in Wijiang’s link.

Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur.
.
.
.
.
.
(only joking!)

 

[archaeopteryx]

that should be end of story for 99.9% of everyone here

Well, thank you, though I think that's an overstatement of the claim I made up thread. It would probably be more valuable to say my results are consistent with Roger Cicala's for the subset of the filters he's tested which I happen to own. Which is why I cited him (others, like @wjiang, have since posted some of the same links). My current standard is Marumi Exus but I also have a B+W MRC Clear, a Hoya HD Protector, and used to use Hoya HMCs. That's a shortlist of the filters Lens Rentals/Olaf Optical Testing found to be both reasonably noninvasive and cost effective. I've had good results with earlier coating iterations from the same manufacturers such as Hoya S-HMC and Marumi DHG.

I've also replicated the problems reported with some filters. For example, the first 100-400 type lens I purchased came with an uncoated Tiffen which produced the doubled lines sometimes reported from low quality filters on long telephotos. I've binned a couple others over the years as well.

I'd caution, however, that I don't have a high resolution capable body and therefore have no direct experience with filter effects on entry-level superresolution imaging. This is an area which, like the super telephoto interactions @wjiang mentioned, I would expect to be effective at exposing protection filter limitations.

Olympus sells clear protective filters. So they aren’t a no-go from the OEM.

In addition to the Sigmas already mentioned, Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony also sell protectors. Canon also made the first element of some of their super telephotos a flat protector, though I think they've dropped that from current designs. Among all the multicoatings I've used Fujinon EBC is probably the best, so I'd anticipate Fuji's Super EBC protectors to do well in their price class. They're more than I can justify spending, though, so I haven't tested one. Nikon's smaller NC Clears are price competitive but I haven't tried one. Either Nikon hasn't made the size I've needed or I've found better pricing on something else.

I am sure I could concoct one that would show little to no difference. But it does demonstrate that if you want the best out of your lens, ditch the filter (especially when light sources are in front of you).

Well, best optical quality---in a conventional sense of maximizing contrasts---for a particular image. Other considerations, such as resale value, may motivate different choices. For example, on two occasions I've incurred sufficiently deep scratches in protection filters to produce obvious image degradation.

I don't usually measure as much of a difference as in the example you posted but some of my indoor results replicate the blacks being not quite as deep and the minor changes at edges. This is consistent with the five and 50 filter examples Roger's posted. In outdoor tests I usually find intrinsic variables like subject motion, natural changes in lighting, or exact placement of AF points contribute larger differences between images than a good protection filter. For example, I had to arrange to collect the 100% moon crops below when the atmosphere was stable and the moon high enough that changes in refraction during the sequence didn't shift its shape substantially. Tripod, OIS off, 10 second self timer with three image sequence, manual exposure, electronic shutter, light wind, aligned and differenced using the same method as for your plant and curtains, all with the Panasonic 100-300 II at 250mm f/5.6 1/400 ISO 200. Two sequences of images, one with a Marumi Exus protection filter fitted and one without, and two of the images on the top row from each. Two of the difference images on the bottom row are therefore controls comparing like images and the third difference compares filtered and unfiltered.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Pushing the differences by four stops makes it more visible what they are. The controls on the ends indicate the dominant differences are base ISO chroma noise and sub-pixel residuals left over from the alignment process. The filtered to unfiltered comparison in the middle shows the main effect of the filter in this test is a slight colour cast to blue, which is unsurprising as no optical glass or multicoating is truly neutral. If one's going to be fussy about such things, I think what this indicates is you'd apply a colour profile for a lens plus its filter rather than just the lens.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

To be fully rigorous I'd repeat this exercise with this kit 10 times like Roger Cicala does to quantify image to image variability. However it doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know from similar tests over many years, lenses, filters, and bodies. To go back to the OP's question, I would say no to UV filters as protection filters and yes to clear protectors. My motivation for this is it's pretty much impossible to make a UV filter which doesn't reduce purples, which is something only @jhawk1000 has touched on so far in this thread. Whilst a colour profile can mostly compensate for a UV filter I find it's simpler just to not buy the kind of filters which cause the trouble.

Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur.

Probably the rest of class Aves is too, in that sense, though there's some ambiguity between @archaeopteryx and Archaeopteryx here. I don't particularly follow follow the genus but it's my impression a lot of the details are still getting sorted as the sample size is around a dozen specimens (Foth 2014, Mayr 2007). Taxonomically there's often some back and forth about what exactly classifies as what while evolutionary sequences and distinctions get worked out (Lee 2011, Xu 2011, Erickson 2009, Mayr 2005, Alonso 2004).

 

[Meditabundo]

Generally I just use a lens hood for protection. Good filters are pricey and unless the lens came with it (when bought secondhand, for example), I don't tend to spend money on them.

 

[Shawn_D]

I'm a "no filter." I keep a high quality one around in case I get into a situation where I will experience water spray or sand spray or the like. When I was in my 20s I shot a whole concert with a high quality uv filter and had some wicked weird reflections in a few shots.

 

[Carbonman]

I used Skylight or UV filters on my old manual focus, film camera lenses. I haven't used filters on any of my digital camera lenses. I'm trying to line up a Costa Rica wildlife tour for my wife and me, and think I may need to be a little cautious with the big lenses.
I'm seriously considering getting a protective 95mm filter for my Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 but don't know whether to get the Olympus filter or the Sigma WR Clear Ceramic filter. The Olympus filter has excellent coatings but I don't know if the Sigma filter has inferior coatings plus the extra physical protection from the ceramic material. The Sigma is $369 CDN and the Olympus is $429 CDN. The price difference isn't a big issue, I'm just including it as an additional commentary. I know camera manufacturers usually charge a little extra for their accessories.
Any comments/recommendations?

 

[moonraker]

Generally a no filter guy, but a CPL is on the 8-25 nearly all the time…

 

[Mike Wingate]

I always was and still am a filter guy. But not on the P7-14mm.

 

[RAH]

I used Skylight or UV filters on my old manual focus, film camera lenses. I haven't used filters on any of my digital camera lenses. I'm trying to line up a Costa Rica wildlife tour for my wife and me, and think I may need to be a little cautious with the big lenses.
I'm seriously considering getting a protective 95mm filter for my Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 but don't know whether to get the Olympus filter or the Sigma WR Clear Ceramic filter. The Olympus filter has excellent coatings but I don't know if the Sigma filter has inferior coatings plus the extra physical protection from the ceramic material. The Sigma is $369 CDN and the Olympus is $429 CDN. The price difference isn't a big issue, I'm just including it as an additional commentary. I know camera manufacturers usually charge a little extra for their accessories.
Any comments/recommendations?

I usually do not use a filter for protection, but if you are going to a very worrisome environment, I think I would. The big argument against them is that they can affect IQ (plus I see someone earlier mentioned bad reflections), but with a high-quality filter it shouldn't be much of a bad effect (IMHO), so I think it is worth the tradeoff in a bad environment.

I usually buy Marumi filters, giving the best bang for the buck. You can get their highest quality 95mm clear filter here for $130: https://www.2filter.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/marumi-95mm-exus-lens-protect-filter.html . Even though you don't care about the cost, it seems like it is a good deal. I don't know where else to get Marumi filters, but 2filter.com (based in New Hampshire) is a good place.

 

[PJ2]

I used to use filters all the time, but found that I was getting flare when shooting Street at night, with camera pointing towards a light source. I removed them from my prime lenses only. I do have filters on my expensive lenses as a precaution

 

[Keeth101]

Must admit, I always used Hoya Pro UV filters but when I got my Olympus 100-400 I felt that I needed to look into things further.

I finally decided on a Marumi DHG Super lens protect filter. It has a water and oil repellent coatings and I can honestly say that I am extremely pleased with it. It is a clear filter so will not add or detract from anything and I just can't fault it, all my pictures are as if no filter was used.

Your choice folks, this was mine and I have no regrets or worries at all.

 

[sciomako]

Wow, it is an old thread resurrected from 2019...

I've been flip-flopping on this issue in the last 3 decades. So, my stance is: I'm hopeless and haven't made up my mind. ?

 

[sciomako]

Generally a no filter guy, but a CPL is on the 8-25 nearly all the time…

How do you deal with the lens hood?

There were so many times I knew I should've used CPL but using CPL with the lens hood is a hassle. (It gets more complicated when my preferred CPL is Cokin P so I can add a graduated ND filter if needed.) And if I forego the lens hood, it becomes an IQ trade-off.

 

[PakkyT]

@sciomako for a normal round screw on polarizer, to quote what I wrote in this thread
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/e-m1x...snt-utilize-its-strength.116243/#post-1577421

I use a polarizing filter with a knurled edge on the rotating part. I find it pretty easy to reach in with my finger tip on my 12-100 with hood on and rotate the ring. Of course while I am doing it part of the scene includes my finger and a part of my hand, but I only need to see enough of the scene to determine how much polarization I am dialing in and once I dial it in where I like it, move hand out of the way and shoot.

For shooting conditions and scenes that can really benefit from a polarizing filter, don't let the hood discourage you from using a tool that can make your photos go from "meh" to "nice!".

 

[Jan Steinman]

… apparently supertelephotos are way more sensitive to filter quality than other lenses.

That explains it: the OM Zuiko 500mm ƒ/8 Reflex just hates having a filter on it!

I generally don't find filters noticeable, but that particular lens goes without.

Otherwise, I don't use them to protect against catastrophic events; I use them against everyday dust, spray, and fingerprints. And then, I periodically throw them in the dishwasher.

I buy them on KEH. I periodically see what they have, and then buy Olympus or B+W ones for a song, generally waiting for sales. Their "UG" and "BGN" filters are generally wonderful, without any visible glass damage.